<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by brianandrews:<B>Erle Montaigue has a form he calls Yang Lu Chan's Form. It has fajing, slow/fast movements. Is his form recognized as Yang Tai Chi or is it his own fabrication?</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I certainly don't speak for the Yang family, but imo Mr Montaigue can only call his form a Yang "style" form. Not a Yang family form.. Two different things. Also, the chance that anyone alive today practices exactly what Yang Lu Chan practiced is very slim to none. You can make your own judgements from there.

Erle's form is definately Yang Chengfu frame and he has said that on his site.

The Lao Yang (a la Luchan) is debatable because if you examine 10 people who say they do Old Yang, they will all have different posture variations. The frame is definately Yang (as opposed to Chen).In the end, it does not matter, I think. If you have quality instruction and you are satisfied with it, that is the goal!, i think.

I don't think Erle learnt it from Yang Luchang himself. Hence it will allways be different from the original.What we now call Yang Family Tai Chi will involve all so. It is inevitable when forms are taught from master to pupil and so on small changes will occur. I even bet that if we closely look at Yang ZhenDuo and Yang Jun we will find differences. And they are close to the source. But I do agree that if it works for someone that is the most important.

I know earl didn’t learn from Yang Luchan… unless he is one heck of a lot older than he looks.

But correct me if I am wrong, all the Yang style we do today that is from Chengfu, comes from Yang Luchan, even though it is not the same form, its source is still Yang Luchan.

But I have to agree it is highly unlikely the exact form as it came from Luchan still exists. I believe Yang Jwing Ming (no relation to the Yang Tai Chi family) does a form of Yang style that is from Banhou and that is likely not the same as what Luchan did nor is it likely the exact same form as Banhou did.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by T:<B>I know earl didn’t learn from Yang Luchan… unless he is one heck of a lot older than he looks.

But correct me if I am wrong, all the Yang style we do today that is from Chengfu, comes from Yang Luchan, even though it is not the same form, its source is still Yang Luchan.

But I have to agree it is highly unlikely the exact form as it came from Luchan still exists. I believe Yang Jwing Ming (no relation to the Yang Tai Chi family) does a form of Yang style that is from Banhou and that is likely not the same as what Luchan did nor is it likely the exact same form as Banhou did.

[This message has been edited by T (edited 01-19-2007).]

[This message has been edited by T (edited 01-19-2007).]</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you're absolutely right in the points you make. Firstly, Yang Lu Chan died in the 19th century, so Earl Montaigue couldn't have learned from him! (Unless, of course, Mr Montaigue has learned some pretty fundamental secrets of Taoist meditation and was born at least 150 years ago and has lived therefrom to this day!). Also, I am sure that all the Yang forms ultimately derive from Yang Lu Chan. But of course, HIS form was a variant of what he had learned from the Chens. As I understand it, however, the big difference that Yang Cheng Fu made to the form he inherited from Yang Ban Hou, and ultimately of course, from Yang Lu Chan, was that he ironed out all the explosive movements which punctuated the older Yang forms and made the whole thing slow and meditative, with the exception of the final Lotus kick. Yang Jwing Ming teaches the Yang Ban Hou form, but according to his YMAA website, which I correspond on as well as this one, Yang Jwing Ming has introduced some personal developments of his own to the Yang Ban Hou form. That said, on many of the Yang style sword routines, the explosive moves survive, in the form of fast leaps and follow-up lunges (to use Western fencing terminology). However, having watched Yang Zhen Duo's sword form video (which I own), really in his sword form, the whole thing is very fast, somewhere between the speed of Tai Chi and Shaolin. However, personally, I have learned another variant of Yang style Tai Chi sword, which is slower overall, but still preserves the explosive (i.e. Fa Jing) lunges. Kind regards, Simon.

As a student within Erle's system for 8 years I might be able to clarify a couple of points. Erle was a student of Chu King Hung during his time in London and was also involved with teaching classes with Chu during that period. Erle got his Yang Cheng Fu from Chu who was a student of Yang Sau Chung. Erle later went to Hong Kong and met with Yang Sau Chung for correction of his form. So we can deduce from this that Erle's YCF form is directly from the Yang lineage.

With regards to his Old Yang Style he got this from another Chinese teacher who he met in Sydney Australia called Chang Yiu Chun who was a student of Yang Shao Hou. Chang not only taught Erle his Old Yang set but also the first of three of 12 Wudang Qi Disruption forms amongst many other techniques involving point striking.

It might be interesting for people to read this Research in China article by Paul Brecher where he performs Erle's Old Yang set before many well respected practitioners as well as Yang Zheng Guo - read the article to see what he and others had to say.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Syd:<B>As a student within Erle's system for 8 years I might be able to clarify a couple of points. Erle was a student of Chu King Hung during his time in London and was also involved with teaching classes with Chu during that period. Erle got his Yang Cheng Fu from Chu who was a student of Yang Sau Chung. Erle later went to Hong Kong and met with Yang Sau Chung for correction of his form. So we can deduce from this that Erle's YCF form is directly from the Yang lineage.

With regards to his Old Yang Style he got this from another Chinese teacher who he met in Sydney Australia called Chang Yiu Chun who was a student of Yang Shao Hou. Chang not only taught Erle his Old Yang set but also the first of three of 12 Wudang Qi Disruption forms amongst many other techniques involving point striking.

It might be interesting for people to read this Research in China article by Paul Brecher where he performs Erle's Old Yang set before many well respected practitioners as well as Yang Zheng Guo - read the article to see what he and others had to say.

Sorry to bust anyone's bubble...but the original Yang lu Chan form is the same form Yang Chen fu taught.

The proof is located in two other sources...

Hao style Taijiquan: Wu Yu-hsiang (along with his two older brothers Wu Ch'eng-ch'ing and Wu Ju-ch'ing) of Yang Lu-ch'an. Wu Yu-hsiang also studied for a brief time with a teacher from the Ch'en family, Chen Ch'ing-p'ing, to whom he was introduced by Yang.

And Wu style : Wu Ch'uan-yü (吳全佑, 1834–1902) was a military officer cadet of Manchu ancestry in the Yellow Banner camp (see Qing Dynasty Military) in the Forbidden City, Beijing and also a hereditary officer of the Imperial Guards Brigade.[3] At that time, Yang Lu-ch'an (1799–1872) was the martial arts instructor in the Imperial Guards, teaching t'ai chi ch'uan,

Hao and Wu style look are very similar to Yang style and both have there origins with Yang Lu Chan

So it's pretty safe to say that the real Yang lu chan form is the same form Yang chen fu was taught.

The real mystery is.... what did Chen Changxing teach Yang lu Chan? Yang style is NOT a simplified Chen style as some would think. There is a distillation of Chen style techniques, but there is also a wealth of "other" techniques not orthodox to chen style.

Known small frame Chen styles do have a similarity to Yang style. Given the depth of Yang style it was probably a chen small frame Lu chan was taught.

I have to disagree with you on the YCF form being the same as his grandfathers. Most of the literature will tell you YLC taught his sons the same sets, but there were "big circle" and "small Circle" training or sets. The two sons practiced different frames, a small frame (Yang Yu [Ban Hou]) and a "medium" frame (Yang Jian). Each practiced what suited their personalities the best...or so it is said. Shao Hou supposedly learned from both brothers. Louis can confirm all of this and what follows or not, I am relying on memory right now.

Wu Chuan Yau was a student of both WLC and YBH. YLCs tai chi was a system that includes "large" circles" and "small circles." Wu is "small circles."

I am sure each generation and each disciple added their own "flavors" to their Tai chi. YCF knew the system, but he taught mostly the "big circles." It has been said by many that he changed numerous things to be able to teach a larger range of people.

How close was what he taught to the public to what YLC taught, no one knows maybe only the Yang family. But in my mind there are significant differences in appearance depending on which line of transmission you are looking at. But it must not be forgot that Tai Chi is about principles more than some outward form. So what is taught today, if it were identical to what YLU taught or not is really insignificant in some ways.

Now some here I am sure remember that early in my study of Yang Family Tai Chi, I was very interested in finding what most closely resembled the original family style. I studied several lineages within Yang Style, small and large frame, all were very different in appearance but all were basically the same. As I learned more I stopped practice of the others and stayed with one, this one because it really didn't matter, the principles are what count, not the appearance of posture or their position in a set.

My guess is to really learn the entire system, you would have to become a family disciple. Hopefully the entire system is still being taught. But even if it isn't, it's all about the principles.

As for Earle...well he has been discussed time and time again on every martial art forum that has ever existed. He does what he does and I guess none of us will ever know if his "Old style" is the original or not.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">As I learned more I stopped practice of the others and stayed with one, this one because it really didn't matter, the principles are what count, not the appearance of posture or their position in a set.</font>

Do you mean that you settled on the Association's Tai Chi, or another version? It might help me to communicate more precisely if I were certain of your references. Also, if you happen to be one of the Michaels I know personally, I apologize for not recognizing you.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">I have to disagree with you on the YCF form being the same as his grandfathers.</font>

If I had to give a short answer, I would have to agree with this statement. As far as I understand it, Yang Chengfu's descendants, disciples, and students did not and do not dispute the changes he made to the form, but rather have largely embraced them. If someone were to argue that these changes somehow made the form fundamentally different, I would, however, formulate an argument similar to what Bamen posted.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Most of the literature will tell you YLC taught his sons the same sets, but there were "big circle" and "small Circle" training or sets. </font>

Michael, is it clear to you that Yang Luchan taught different sets? What I have always thought is that he taught a single "system" to his two sons, but that they tended in their practice of the form toward two different norms: a medium frame and a small frame. Yang Shaohou apparently learned mostly from his uncle, Yang Banhou, and shared his temperament. He also practiced small frame. Then came Yang Chengfu, who apparently tended toward and further developed a large frame. Do you see this differently?

To make my point clearer, let me make an analogy with the speed of the form. As I understand it, the Yang family does not absolutely require any particular speed for the form, but might, if urged to do so, recommend certain approximate times for certain purposes. From what I have seen on YouTube and elsewhere, the three sons of Yang Chengfu did seem to prefer slightly different speeds. In another seventy years, I could imagine teachers talking about Yang Chengfu's form as having different speeds and that one son taught a faster pace, another a medium pace, and another a slower pace. While such a distinction might be true, it would capture little that seems to be essential to anyone practicing now. We all have our preferences, but it is hard to say that changing the form's pace fundamentally changes its character, at least within the parameters that are commonly shown.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">YLCs tai chi was a system that includes "large" circles" and "small circles." Wu is "small circles."</font>

We have talked before on this form about large vs. small circles, but I must confess that I am still not certain of what distinction is being made. Could you elaborate? Do you know what aspects of the Wu long form could be representative of a choice for a small circle?

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">But it must not be forgot that Tai Chi is about principles more than some outward form. So what is taught today, if it were identical to what YLU taught or not is really insignificant in some ways.</font>

I agree with the focus on principles. I would much prefer that people trying to distinguish styles were always clear about differences in principle or focus. It would also be helpful if people went beyond differences in postures in the form and compared system to system.

First I am the same Michael that has been here now again for years. (wink) We haven't met, but I'd like to someday.

I began with the Association's set from the beginning, but with the permission of my teacher explored other lines. What I learned from that was though each had a different outward appearance, they were the same in regard to principles. Even in regard to individual postures, they may look very different but the applications were very much the same.

I agree with you that YLC taught a system, what that entailed, I really can't say as that has not been open to me. That was part of my interest in different lines of transmission. To see if there was more.

The Wu family is just one source that says the system had more to it than one set or doing it fast or slow. I don't know how accurate the following is but I have heard it echoed elsewhere, including from different lines in the Yang family lineage. Maybe Bob can comment on the following and the frame differences having come to the Yang style from Wu.

Now this is what I find interesting is seeing what Ban Hou taught. I've seen two different sets that supposedly came from him. It did not look like what we do today. So I guess the question is what is the small frame? I have no answer. Hopefully the Yang family still maintains these different training methods with maybe different focus. Which I think is what small circles, from really is.

The only thing I would disagree slightly with you on concerning what is "essential" to our practice today. In regard to speed I think practicing different speeds is an important training method. We practice at a certain pace of years, but at some point a faster practice allows you to see if the principles we develop will remain in place at a faster speed. If you haven't tried this yet, it can be an eye opener. I also at times will practice at a fairly "fast" speed and because of this have to make my movements "smaller." But I also will do my set at a very very slow place nearly doubling the time it would take me to do my normal pace. All three have things to teach you.

But if you remember, I practice series of postures both right and left also. It's just a way to develop muscle memory on both sides. I don't know if it is "necessary," but I like to do it.

I like your thought about comparing systems rather than postures. But what makes them all Tai chi are the principles and their common root is self defense. We have talked about this many years ago, but the principles of self defense and what the basic meanings that are found in each posture and transition are very important I think to really understanding the principles we are trying to make a part of our existence. I think movement with meaning deepens ones understanding.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">First I am the same Michael that has been here now again for years. (wink) We haven't met, but I'd like to someday.</font>

Thanks for confirming what I had thought, but something in your post had led me to doubt my memory.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">I began with the Association's set from the beginning, but with the permission of my teacher explored other lines. What I learned from that was though each had a different outward appearance, they were the same in regard to principles.</font>

I had a contrasting experience. Before settling on the Association's set, I had experience with other versions of Yang Chengfu's set. I would say that these seemed to be operating along a few different principles.

In my view, which is apparently a distinctly minority view, all Taijiquan does not operate on the exact same principles. I see Taijiquan as one big family made up of different styles and sub-styles with overlapping principles. Some versions seem to have more in common than others, even if most of them share a common core.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">The Wu family is just one source that says the system had more to it than one set or doing it fast or slow.</font>

On its face, wouldn't all Tai Chi lineages say that there is more than just the one barehand set? A question that might be more provocative is whether there was ever more than one barehand set that was considered important to the training curriculum. The more I learn and the more I practice, the more I feel that any simple answer would be misleading, especially for a martial art that ultimately does not put a high value on rote-learned postures.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">We practice at a certain pace of years, but at some point a faster practice allows you to see if the principles we develop will remain in place at a faster speed. If you haven't tried this yet, it can be an eye opener. I also at times will practice at a fairly "fast" speed and because of this have to make my movements "smaller."</font>

I have occasionally tried doing parts of the form quickly, but generally do not like the feel of the form at such speeds. I pretty much rely on the weapons forms for training faster speeds. As for testing out whether I keep the principles, I prefer to focus on Push Hands, since I find the opportunity to test more principles in more immediate ways than in just doing the form. Perhaps, if one of my teachers advises my to practice at different speeds, I will give up some other part of my practice to incorporate that.

By the way, did you also do Push Hands in different styles? If so, did you find that the differences were as pronounced as with the barehand forms?